ABSTRACT
Cegana LHV, Nardi SMT, Pascoeto L, Paschoal VDA. The effectiveness of early diagnostic tools for neural lesions in leprosy. 37p. MANUSCRIPT, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.11.19.20234963
Introduction Leprosy can cause different lesions in peripheral nerves and inervatory structures.
Objectives To analyse the effectiveness of evaluation protocols used to identify neural lesions in leprosy such as Degree of Physical Disability (DPD), Simplified Neurological Assessment (SNA) and propose to use Neurodynamic Assessment (NDA).
Method Descriptive analytical study, associative, with 27 individuals treated in two outpatient leprosy clinics in São Paulo State, between 2017 and 2019, and 27 individuals from the paired control group. The Mann-Whitney, Multivariate Linear Regression and association between variables and P<0.05 values were used.
Results The test that most captured the neurological alterations was the SNA, with 22 (81.5%) in the upper limbs (ULs) and 25 (92.6%) in the lower limbs (LLs), followed by the NDA, with 20 (74.1%) in the ULs and 11 (40.7%) in the LLs. The DPD showed handicap in the hands of 16 (59.2%) individuals and in the feet of 17 (62.9%) individuals, and they have expressed sensitivity. DPD showed agreement with SNA in 21 (77.8%) of the cases in ULs (p=0.010) and 19 (70,4%) of the cases in LLs (p=0.060). DPD and NDA showed that in 19 (70.4%) of the patients evaluated there was concordance of results in ULs (p=0.143); 9 (33.3%) in LLs (p=0.125). SNA and the NDA in the ULs found agreement in 21 (77.8%); 11 (40.7%) (p=0.786) in the LLs.
Conclusion The three assessment instruments are specific and will hardly produce false positive tests. DPD can produce more false negatives than SNA. If there is an instrument to be chosen, it should be the SNA, since it is more sensitive, more accurate and has a less negative likelihood ratio. Neurodynamic tests were positive in 7.4% of individuals while there were still no changes in the SNA; afterwards, these changes appeared.
Descriptors Neural mobilization; Leprosy; Peripheral nerves; Disability; Pain; Physical therapy.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The study was approved by FAMERP Ethics and Research Committee in accordance with the requirements of National Resolutions No. 196/96, Report no. 2,469,355 and CONEP Report no. 2,374,319 Plataformabrasil.saude.gov.br/visao/centralSuporteNova/consultarProjetoPesquisa/detalharProjetoPesquisa.jsf
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Data cannot be shared publicly because of our institution does not provide a repository. Data are available from the authors.
